Talk:2087
I'm a little confused as to using the "real" 2087 year page to call this information out as an alternate continuity when we already have the 2087 SFC-style pages designed to separate this information but maintain it in the same contiuity as the rest of Star Trek? -- Captain MKB 02:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC) :It was added by an anonymous user (User_talk:75.168.140.92) who was adding info from the novel Strangers from the Sky. I don't even know if that person even knew about the separate SFC timeline. Which begs the question: Should we have occasional pointers here (in the main timeline) to significant dates from the SFC timeline, providing a link to those pages? People pulling the dates from novels rather than from the SFC itself or FASA may not realize it's in the wrong place.--Emperorkalan 02:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC) This would probably be a good thing -- like a standard disambig -- stating "you might be looking for the Spaceflight Chronology date for the Federation founding, in 2087 SFC. In the canon ST timeline, the UFP was blah blah blah 2161" -- Captain MKB 02:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC) :Why shouldn't it be? Isn't MB policy to present all info without judging which is "real", and simply noting discrepancies? It's wonderful that we have SFC pages that detail the info from that reference book, but the novels don't differentiate between SFC years or Okudachron years or real years. Why make casual users go looking for different 2087s?? -- 02:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ::MB policy isn't really the issue here since we're not simply dealing with discrepencies between two diffrent licensed products: it was later canon material that changed the chronology. And so yes, there are "real" years that follow dates given in canon, and which are not compatible with the dates given in the SFC. That's one of the reasons I created the separate SFC timeline: so that books and games that use the SFC timeline (and events from it) can be placed in their original context, without adapting their dates to the canon-compatible "real" timeline. That said, I agree with you that there should be something in the main timeline pages about events mentioned in novels that use SFC dates. But I also think those "something"s should point readers to the SFC timeline pages so that the event can be seen in its proper context with other events.--Emperorkalan 04:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC) :Well, there are only a handful of novels that subscribe the the SFC .. the rest follow the standard Okuda-chron that canon does. The disambiguation above would direct that page to a casual reader who happened to read one of the five or six 1980s novels you are referreing to, anon. We're talking about a handful of anomalous novels specifying SFC dates compared to the hundreds of novels that subscribe to the accepted timelines or ignore timelining. -- Captain MKB 02:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ::Actually, I think "a handful" is low-balling the number, and "hundreds" is overstating the other side, but that doesn't matter much anyway. The main goal is trying to reduce confusion while providing the information. --Emperorkalan 04:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC) 02:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ::From Ishmael: ::: "Time in another sense, maybe?" he said. "An Earthdate?" ::: "No," she said disbelievingly. ::: "Old reckoning," said Kirk. "Without the B.C. or A.D. or O.R. We're so used to thinking in stardates and Standard--but it could be an O.R. Earthdate." ::: "Yeah, but even in O.R. they'd still use B.C. or A.D. ," protested Kellogg. ::: "Not necessarily," said McCoy suddenly. "Edith..." His voice barely paused over the name of the woman whose life Kirk had prevented him from saving. "Edith Keeler didn't." :: This is a good indication that there are two systems ("reckonings") of Earthdates, and Earth natives were often confused at the dates from the old reckoning in the mid-to-late 23rd century (they seem to have overcame that by the 24th century). :: I'd guess that if a character said "so-and-so happened in 2087"... and it clearly did not via other sources... that could be chalked up to more Earthdate confusion. So even if the Spaceflight Chronology has all these interesting dates, it's more official for them *not* to be using Gregorian years anyway.--Tim Thomason 03:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC) :::It's one thing if it is something ambiguous like the above exchange. But others use dates clearly base off the SFC timeline, refer to events from that timeline, or even depict events mentioned in the SFC, what use is ther to chalking it up to "Earthdate confusion" when you can definitely place it in the SFC timeline?--Emperorkalan 04:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ::I'm not sure what you're asking. I'm all for keeping SFC-based dates on separate pages from STE-based dates. The above exchange was an (apparently misguided) attempt at telling 75.xxx that *all* dates are somewhat suspect and they shouldn't spin around trying to make sense of something that no one said was Gregorian-based in the first place.--Tim Thomason 05:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC) I think for a casual viewer (for an established user for that matter), if they're looking up a date from a book, they're going to find these year pages, which are not linked to the SFC pages at all, ie. they will never find those pages, making them a little useless... I can understand keeping all the SFC data together, so you can read it as one consistent chronology. But it needs to be linked to from, and included on, these pages in some way. --8of5 10:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC) :So are we actually arguing over anything? Or do we have a consensus: That it is proper that some events from the SFC -- particularly those mentioned in a secondary source (novel/reference book/comic, etc.) directly using SFC dates -- be cited on the main timeline pages, but with notes mentioning the incompatibility of dates and providing a link to the SFC timeline pages.--Emperorkalan 16:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC) :On the subject of "novels that use SFC dates" -- there are Final Frontier, Strangers from the Sky, The Final Reflection, maybe Federation or Killing Time, and then that's it for my recollection. There might be two or three more from the first run of Pocket TOS, but seriously, where are more hiding? This isn't low-balling, this is a serious minority. There were only fifty or so other novels published between the 1979 Spaceflight Chronology and 1993's Okuda-Chron, and many of those don't mention Earth dates between the 21st century and the 23rd century at all. And yes, between 1993 and today there have literally been over 100 Trek novels published! -- Captain MKB 14:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ::Mike, if I'd meant to say you were "full of crap" I'd have used those terms. Are you actualy up in arms about my comment above? --Emperorkalan 16:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC) :::Playful retort, sorry if you took it more seriously. I literally mean that the number of novels that reference the Spaceflight Chronology's year system could literally be held in a pile in your hands, hence a handful. -- Captain MKB 18:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC) ::::Gotcha. Sometimes I can be dreadfully deaf to levity in online exchanges (or would that be blindness, since it's a visual medium?), depending on my mood. --Emperorkalan 02:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC) ::Actually, Federation used the Okuda timeline... but an early version that was later "invalidated" by First Contact. We're not going to create a "Reeves-Stevens timeline" to differentiate that book's 21st century from the "real" one now, are we? ;) -- 19:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC) :::No, that's a more typical case where we note discrepencies. The SFC timeline is a special case only because of how extensive it is itself and how many other works made use of it (there's the handful of novels mentioned above, possibly some others which mention events or ships from the SFC but don't date them, at least two reference books (Mr. Scott's Guide and Worlds of the Federation), and the whole raft of FASA RPG material. (Some comics have used SFC ships. Did any use the dates?)--Emperorkalan 02:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC) I believe the Star Trek II Biographies book might also use the timeline, it gives Kirk's birth year as 2132 for instance. --8of5 20:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC) :Without other information it's hard to tell if they borrowed bits or not. The date doesn't match, though. In the SFC, TOS would have taken place early in first decade of the 23rd century (the Horizon visited Iotia in 2102, the USS Valiant disappeared at the Vendikar system in 2153. FASA placed the events of "Errand of Mercy" in 2208). Kirk would have been born about 2174 with the FASA date, maybe a few years earlier if you use other markers straight from the SFC.--Emperorkalan 21:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Maybe not then, it dates Wrath of Khan as 2182. --8of5 03:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)